....explain why something that would be evil for a man to do becomes good when done by your god.....if you/your god want me to come to your faith, then answering that key question above to my satisfaction is the minimum that needs to happen.

.....the question in hand - i.e. Why is it that anything god does it right but if a man does it it might be wrong.......Now I suggested that maybe it was that whatever god does is right juts because god does it. Is that right? Just a yes or no will do.

I guess that that is also your answer to me, Wayne. "Whatever god does is right just because god does it".

Except.....that doesn't really answer the question, does it? What it is saying is that there is no objective standard of good or evil, but rather that "what god decides" is the only arbiter of correct action.

Unfortunately, that simply begs the question as to WHY that is the answer? "God can only do good" does not work because it renders the concept of "good" mutable: one thing in one circumstance, another in another. A more reasonable answer might be "because god has the power" - although that again has issues with the mutability of "good", as well as the connotations of "might makes right".

But I'm going ahead of myself somewhat. Wayne, is your answer to my question (in red) similarly "because it was done by god"? Assuming that is the answer, what is the answer that lies behind that? WHY does it become good because it was done by god?

I don't wish to interupt the existing debate any more than necessary, but your comment happened to grab my attention.

If god created Satan, controls Satan and has knowledge of everything Satan does as you have stated... then that would make Satan a proxy of god, and god an accessory before the fact for any evil perpetuated by his "bad cop". Therefore, by your own comment, evil can and should be attributed to your god.

For example, Hitler never directly murdered any Jews, gypsies or homosexuals during WWII, but it was on his orders and with the full knowledge that those serving underneath had carried out his commands. So, would you or would you not attribute evil to Hitler?

I'll one up you on that one. Hitler, it could be said, survived an assassination attempt by standing in the blast shadow of the leg of a heavy desk or table in the same way I was protected by a shout in my Montclair story. I give the credit for my providential incident to God, and Hitlers to Satan. Satan is the god of this world, but He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world. So Hitler was more than lucky, I think God allowed Satan to protect Hitler because his job wasn't done. Obama's job has just begun.

Quote

1 John 4:4New King James Version (NKJV) 4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

You stated that Satan is the god of earth right now.....so HE must have saved you,according to your logic that Obama is in power because Satan controls earth and its happenings.....right?

God get's the glory in any case.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Idle talk, Wayne. You don't know DTE. You don't know how he would react to anything. And even if you had met him, for you to speak with such certitude would be foolish. What you have posted here is the internet equilavent of stomping your feet and shouting "Nuuh-uh!"

When Women become preachers over men, I am always dubious, and the biblical principle supports my apprehensions though I tolerate and concede to its existence. I may be attracted to the LDS Church because the standard is held up there to a greater degree than in other places, and so made me comfortable to join.

Oops! It looks like I gave you credit for having better morals than the bible too soon. I guess it turns out you do not have modern morals afterall. You have caveman morals.

You are going to have to talerate quips about the founding fathers that support my arguments with you. Your refusal to acknowledge the profound influence men like Lincoln causes me to be suspect of your depth.

No, I don't have to respond to "founding father" quips. They were not theologians or experts on religion. Even if they were, modern advances in archaeology and textual criticism put them at a huge disadvantage. You are using them as an appeal to authority. It is a formal logical fallacy and that was what I was getting at by saying Lincoln engaged in SPAG. Just because Lincoln - or any founding father - believed something is not sufficient for me to believe it.

Your second sentence is not a complete sentence. I do not know what you are trying to say, exactly, but I get you are trying to make a dig at the depth of my knowlege, which is a laugh.

You clearly softened your demand for your magic acronym to stick to Lincoln.

I promise you, I did not. You misinterpreted something I said, either before or after I clarified. My intent and meaning is exactly the same. So either you were mistaken about the harshness of my original claim, or you are mistaken about the softness about subsequent explanations. Or both. I have not retracted, back pedaled or walked back anything.

Shallow screwtape. Your contemporary arguments don't trump because of a 160 year gap. That's the red herring. I missed the graveyard thing.. It's OK, I don't need it explained.

You do need it explained because you have no idea what my point was. You were trying to say Lincoln agreed with you. But since he was not here as a participant to this conversation, there is no way to know that. And even if there was, it is irrelevant. This is not about accumulating votes. And the point about the 160 year gap was me explaining to you the Lincoln is dead and cannot agree or disagree with anyone.

It doesn't. It does point out that even though it has been explained to you at least twice you still do not understand the concept.

And I did look it up and read it when you mentioned it in that post. I meant I had not read it before you brought it up. I do not see the relevance of it on our conversation. All that god talk from Lincoln was him expressing his beliefs or pandering to the religious masses. So what?

Such arrogance. This is what I have been talking about all along. You ARE putting yourself at the center of it by saying you are chosen by yhwh to have all these visions and experiences rather that attributing them to more mundane explanations.

Wayne, you don't get it. All these examples of president praying don't mean anything other than they were religious or pandering to the religious. In Washington's case, he was fulfilling the duty of a chaplain. So what? What point are you trying to make?

Wayne, trying to have a discussion with you is a dreary and boring exercise. You consistently miss or ignore the point, bring in irrelevant references, make crazy claims about things you could not possibly know and ironically accuse me of "lacking depth".

If you want me to continue to participate, you'd better get your shit together in this conversation, because this is getting really tedious for me. I'm not going to address any more off topic subjects.

Let me over simplify the whole thing. (Job 1:10) says: "Should we accept only good from God and not accept evil?"

First of all, your reference is wrong. Job 1:10 is satan talking yhwh into breaking his covenant. The verse you quote is Job 2:10

"Not accept evil"? What the heck? Why would yhwh be sending evil to us? In some bibles this is translated as “trouble” or “hard times”. But it’s not that. It is Evil with a capital E. The Hebrew word is “ra’”. It is the same word used in Gen 2:9 when referring to the Tree of Knowlede of Good and Evil. And in Gen 6:5 when referring to the evil in the minds of men that provoked the Great Flood. And again in Sodom. So this explicitly says, confirms actually, that yhwh is a god that commits evil acts.

But wait a second! I thought yhwh was good? Not just good, but Good, with a capital G. So why evil? Well, it turns out yhwh is a complicated guy. He isn't pure Good. He is also Evil. He says so himself, which is why I said “confirmed” above. In Isaiah 45:7 he says “I created Good and Evil”. Yhwh is not a strictly good god, contrary to everything xians (and others) say about him.

You see, in theology there is something called The Problem of Evil (or Suffering), also called Theodicy. The question is, if God is good, omnipotent and omniscient, how can there be suffering? The fact of suffering negates at least one of those supposed traits of a god.

People look to religion to make sense of a universe that is uncaring and seems cruel and capricious. When bad things happen people often wonder “why?” The bible gives a number of other reasons:Your suffering is a natural outcome of your own sin.Your suffering is caused by other people's sin.Your suffering is yhwh’s punishment for your sins. Your suffering is redemptive, or has a positive benefit

These are the pat answers we get from theologians, priests and other sorcerers. We heard them all after Sandy Hook.

Job is another attempt to explain suffering in the bible. But in Job it gives a non-answer. It just says “who the hell knows? Now stop complaining.” (Job 38:1 on) In Job, yhwh is as opaque and uncaring as nature. In the end yhwh chastises Job, essentially saying “I’m yhwh and you’re not. So you are going to take what I give you and like it. Now, shut the fuck up.” It really gives no answer.

Screwtape.It may be better if the two of us not talk any longer. Others here like parking places have no trouble opening the pdfs. Maybe you could have someone you trust with your computer help you with the technical issue you are having.

I suspect that your having failed to know the difference between George Bush and George Washington was because you are suffering from a confirmation bias so severe that you are only going to embarrass yourself if you attempt to continue the conversation.

In the end, maybe the information that your computer is blocking is information you are not allowed to have. You know that I'm willing to help you with the technical issue all I can.

Wayne

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I suspect that your having failed to know the difference between George Bush and George Washington was because you are suffering from a confirmation bias so severe that you are only going to embarrass yourself if you attempt to continue the conversation.

Seriously? I don't know the difference between Bush and Washington? Are you sure you want to use those particular words?

At the bottom of each my posts is a link to a catch all of the pdfs of articles I have referred to. screwtape apparently hasn't been able to access them so he has been flying blind all this time saying I'm not providing proof, when the real issue is that he can't get to my articles.

There have been cases when my links have gone bad, but that might be one in ten, and I fix them when I become aware. Anyone who wants to know how I validate God will not be satisfied with what I have written in the posts until they have read the corresponding stories.

If I could get my act together on wordpress, I could publish them in HTML and there would be no hitches, but I'm only competent to write them right now. I'm working on it. http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes

I've offered $100 to someone that can impress me with a page idea, and create a template just for the link above. What I really need is probably more valuable than that. Tell me if you have trouble.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

OK< I get you Wayne. however, that many files is, if you will pardon the words, a hell of a read. It's pushing it to expect people to read all that. Don't you have anything more concise?

Just start with: 'Why God Let Those Kids Die'. and then 'Cold Eggs at Paul’s'

There in roughly the order they have come up for discussion. Read more only if you wish to see how God guides a believer.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

OK< I get you Wayne. however, that many files is, if you will pardon the words, a hell of a read. It's pushing it to expect people to read all that. Don't you have anything more concise?

In this Xmas's episode of Doctor Who, there is a scene called the "one word test". I forget the exact quote, but the gist is that you have to answer with a single word: people use more words when they lie, but using a single word it is much, much harder to lie, or to obscure the truth.

I can get behind that idea. Why should it take thousands of words to convey the Truth? If you have to explain, and explain, and explain, is there something wrong with the message you want to convey?

Doesn't apply always, of course. But as a rule of thumb, a clear and obvious message can usually be conveyed in a few sentences - and you generally have to lay a story around with many words to obscure the truth, because a lie with few words is generally very easy to see through.

I can get behind that idea. Why should it take thousands of words to convey the Truth? If you have to explain, and explain, and explain, is there something wrong with the message you want to convey?

Doesn't apply always, of course.

Once you have read them, you should find that it doesn't apply here. These are stories that needed be written because they each are their own account of God's intervention and apparent favor. I gave you a bunch because the fact it that happens to me so often may be the entire validation case itself. I'm not over explaining a faulty notion, I'm enjoying and sharing the wonder of the reality of God's presence.

Edited to say: I just reorganised the WaynesEpisodes page to V.2

« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 01:09:05 PM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

We have links a few post up to all of Wayne's stories. Let's simply look at this one. (I hope Wayne doesn't mind me popping the text here but some can't open his .pdfs.)

Quote

Earthquake

One morning at Paul's Coffee shop I had a vision, the restaurant went into upheaval; some screaming, some laughing, some running out the door, everything disrupted. This vision occurred as I stared into my eggs as they went cold. Two days later I returned to the same restaurant, sat in same counter stool and then the October 1 1987 earthquake caused the same thing I had seen in the vision. I had just told the lady next to me that Pat Robertson would have an impact on the nation and as I said the word impact the quake began. A waitress screamed and ran outside, commotion ensued but the lady and I just laughed. Exactly like the vision.

I should mention that Pat Robertson, on that very day, announced his candidacy for presidency in New York, where he got his start. You would think that I might have known that because I watched 700 Club back then, but I didn't. The reason I told the stranger lady what I thought about Robertson was that I overheard her telling someone next to her about the announcement. How rude of me to interrupt their conversation. You can't tell me that's not funny.

Now to summarize how remarkable it all was, this is what God had to do to make it all happen. He knew exactly to the second when the EQ was going to occur. He gave me a two day advance notice, without telling me it was going to be an earthquake. He lead me back to the same chair, which was open and waiting for me at a crowded counter and placed next to me a stranger lady that just happened to be a telephone prayer counsellor from a local 700 club location (California is along way from Virginia Beach). I overheard her talking about Robertson and butted into the conversation. The timing of my words were so precise that we both went giddy in the midst of a potential disaster. Every element of my vision was represented at that moment. Whata coincidence, er sorry, there I go again using the wrong term.

Now my problem with this story is that it isn't a premonition or Wayne would have known, before the event, what would happen and might have been able to get people out from properties nearby a well as the cafe.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Belief system is an interesting term, like I went out and bought one off the shelf.

You did! The "product" was brought to you, pitched, and sold to you when you were young. You bought the stock (fully invested) without investigating it first - as is the case with nearly every religionist on the planet - and now you are trying to defend it by both rationalizing the inconvenient facts (and counter-examples), while spinning the interpretation of your alleged experiences ("filtering") in a fashion that is indistinguishable from confirmation bias. It's dishonest, plain and simple.

I don't mind if it gets critically examined. I believe it because it happens to me the way it happens to me.

This is more dishonesty. If you truly didn't mind that your beliefs be critically examined you would be doing that YOURSELF - while not trying to insulate/rationalize your interpretation in a way that is always favorable to what you assumed at the outset (i.e. - the presupposition of your bible). Your words are not lining up with your actions.

If it happened to you, you would believe it too. There is absolutely no issue of honesty involved. I'm not lying about what happens so why is that dishonest?

I used to believe it just like you! For nearly 20 years I attempted your same arguments (and then some). I used to attempt the same serendipitous, superstitious, confirmation bias. I thought, "It's the still small voice talking to me" or "Oh, Jesus wants me to do X b/c this just can't be a coincidence." I told friends that I "saw a vision of Jesus and he told me X." This was all until I began to discover that other religions make the same superstitious, non-falsifiable, non-demonstrable claims (with just as much ferver, passion, and certainty). In fact, I wrote journal entries that look just like your stories! "Jesus gave me this vision, and then he confirmed it because my friend called me 5 minutes later and said X" - all the while not realizing (as you are not realizing) the confirmation bias and self-fulfilling proclamation that I was happening.

Secondly, you are spinning my words once again. I DID NOT say you are being dishonest regarding the actual events of what may, or may not, have happened. I said you are practicing intellectual hypocrisy (dishonesty) b/c you are lowering your standard of evidence ONLY for YOUR religion, which you assumed from the beginning and are now filtering everything through, and not for anything else. In other words, you are not treating your religion (belief system) like you would any other belief system (or attempted sales pitch). You ASSUMED it (your bible) from childhood (placed all your eggs in the Jesus Basket) and are now suspending critical thinking, disinterested analyses, and honest investigation.

Take a look at the surrounding posts and how questions are posed. I know you are passionate, but I'm going to limit responses for the reason I already explained. Does not compute.

It "does not compute" because you won't allow good critical thinking in - b/c if you did it would mean you would have to change your mind about what you assumed and bought into early on. You said you could validate your belief in God (as well as give us a good reason why this alleged God won't heal amputees) but you haven't done that. You just keep using circular reasoning and rationalization.

Secondly, every religion says, "For me it's a reality." Of course it is, b/c you assumed it and based your entire life upon it! Muslims say and do the exact same thing. But that doesn't make it an actual reality. Santa Claus is a total reality for millions of kids (as is astrology or dowsing for many people), so what. We aren't talking about "reality for Wayne" (there is no Wayne's World). We are talking about reality, period (the one we ALL are in). This is why I said faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is absolutely useless is helping us distinguish between fact and fiction. Every religion claims to have "faith" in their deity/holy book/prophet etc. Why are you being so gullible like them?? Have you ever questioned your personal subjective experiences? People are often wrong about what they think they experience. You know that, right? Do you think it's possible that you could be mistaken (like you likely think the Muslims are)?? How can you, in clear conscience, believe that every other personal experience confirmation of Islam for Muslims (for example) is mistaken and yet yours is correct?

No, you can't just go off of your personal experiences Wayne (b/c those can be very unreliable). You need to exercise good critical thinking skills (logic, reason, and evidence together) and what seems evidently clear here is that you're aren't doing that.

Somebody early on in this discussion insulted this man Paul Harvey. My response as I recall was: "Good grief".

The same commenter went on to adjust the insult into another insult. I have said of this commenter that he suffers from a lack of depth.

I just thought Paul Harvey should have a chance to defend himself.

I'll be out of the loop until this evening.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Wayne, it seems you have completely lost the thread of our conversation. I can see that is easy to do when you have discussions with half a dozen people over the course of a couple weeks. I do not blame you for that. As a refresher, we had been discussing the story of Job and what that implies about yhwh, the god of the bible.

When I say you’ve not given evidence or made any real argument, I am speaking in reference to this particular topic. I was not talking about your visions, premonitions or weird coincidences. Those are not the topic you and I are discussing.

Somehow, for some reason, you keep dragging in 18th and 19th century American political leaders, as if they are somehow relevant to this. I cannot see how they are and you’ve not explained. Whether I mistook GW for Bush (as you brought him up in an earlier discussion) strikes me is similarly irrelevant, because again, whether Washington or Bush prayed has no bearing whatsoever on Job and assumes the validity of xianity without establishing it.

If you think we’ve said all that can be said about Job and whether yhwh is just, fair, good or not, then that’s fine. But if you want to talk about any of those other topics, I’m not all that interested.

But does anyone else find it more than mildly ironic that Waynes avatar is a picture of himself doing none other but looking down on everyone (the cameras point of view). I had many phsycology classes and it's all too embarressing to see his avatar and then read the self god-like BS he spews as if he talks to someone of deveinty that nobody else has that direct line of communication and he's a medium.

So typical of his ego.

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Somebody early on in this discussion insulted this man Paul Harvey. My response as I recall was: "Good grief".

The same commenter went on to adjust the insult into another insult. I have said of this commenter that he suffers from a lack of depth.

I just thought Paul Harvey should have a chance to defend himself.

When I think of God.... I think of Ram trucks! Such as powerful statement and even misrepresents the bible of humourously creating an 8th day upon which god created farmers because the privous 6/7 days was way too ambigous so that even superbowl marketing groups needed to redfine and actally create the 8th day which gives more information to the Dorito chip, chillie chees fries nation. A nation in which god cares what the outcome of a sports game is.

So deep, so profound...

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

I'll one up you on that one. Hitler, it could be said, survived an assassination attempt by standing in the blast shadow of the leg of a heavy desk or table in the same way I was protected by a shout in my Montclair story. I give the credit for my providential incident to God, and Hitlers to Satan. Satan is the god of this world, but He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world. So Hitler was more than lucky, I think God allowed Satan to protect Hitler because his job wasn't done. Obama's job has just begun.

Thank you for responding... however, I don't believe you understood the point of my post. Put simply: If satan... created by your god to be evil... performs evil acts with both god's full knowledge and permission, then that would make god just as culpable in whatever evil deeds satan perpetuates. Please look up the definitions of what a "proxy" is, and the legal term "accessory before the fact" and see if this is exactly the relationship between your god and satan.

Logged

The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

I'll one up you on that one. Hitler, it could be said, survived an assassination attempt by standing in the blast shadow of the leg of a heavy desk or table in the same way I was protected by a shout in my Montclair story. I give the credit for my providential incident to God, and Hitlers to Satan. Satan is the god of this world, but He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world. So Hitler was more than lucky, I think God allowed Satan to protect Hitler because his job wasn't done. Obama's job has just begun.

Thank you for responding... however, I don't believe you understood the point of my post. Put simply: If satan... created by your god to be evil... performs evil acts with both god's full knowledge and permission, then that would make god just as culpable in whatever evil deeds satan perpetuates. Please look up the definitions of what a "proxy" is, and the legal term "accessory before the fact" and see if this is exactly the relationship between your god and satan.

I'll not refute your argument, it is well stated and calculated. I understood it. My answer, from your perspective, shouldn't have caused you to assume I didn't understand it. I'll not attribute evil to God as I am obedient to the instructions for me not to do so. He also told me not to covet. You may disobey him by attributing evil to God if you wish. Good luck with that one.

By the way, where do you think the word good came from? Disobey his desire to be addressed by his self assigned station at your own peril.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 07:34:03 PM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I'll one up you on that one. Hitler, it could be said, survived an assassination attempt by standing in the blast shadow of the leg of a heavy desk or table in the same way I was protected by a shout in my Montclair story. I give the credit for my providential incident to God, and Hitlers to Satan. Satan is the god of this world, but He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world. So Hitler was more than lucky, I think God allowed Satan to protect Hitler because his job wasn't done. Obama's job has just begun.

Thank you for responding... however, I don't believe you understood the point of my post. Put simply: If satan... created by your god to be evil... performs evil acts with both god's full knowledge and permission, then that would make god just as culpable in whatever evil deeds satan perpetuates. Please look up the definitions of what a "proxy" is, and the legal term "accessory before the fact" and see if this is exactly the relationship between your god and satan.

I'll not refute your argument, it is well stated and calculated. I understood it. My answer, from your perspective, shouldn't have caused you to assume I didn't understand it. I'll not attribute evil to God as I am obedient to the instructions for me not to do so. He also told me not to covet. You may disobey him by attributing evil to God if you wish. Good luck with that one.

By the way, where do you think the word good came from? Disobey his desire to be addressed by his self assigned station at your own peril.

So, you refute what your god wrote in his own autobiography, as already pointed out? He already said he created evil, and it is your stance to refute the Word of your lord? Its so demonic, friend.

But does anyone else find it more than mildly ironic that Waynes avatar is a picture of himself doing none other but looking down on everyone (the cameras point of view). I had many phsycology classes and it's all too embarressing to see his avatar and then read the self god-like BS he spews as if he talks to someone of deveinty that nobody else has that direct line of communication and he's a medium.

So typical of his ego.

That's funny. I like that. I'm not God but he does allow me to see you all from his perspective, from time to time. That's from a ski lift at Snow Basin Utah, which is about as much like heaven as anywhere I have ever been.

Edited to say: Just after typing this post, I got a pretty bad toothache. If you don't mind, I'd like to humbly retract.

It's feeling better already.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 08:26:06 PM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

The problem I have with Wayne's stories is that they're personal anecdotes, odd occurrences that can't be easily explained. Wayne attributes them to God, but the problem is that there's no way to show that. If Wayne were a Muslim, he would attribute them to Allah; if he were a Satanist, he would attribute them to Satan; if he were a Hindu, he might attribute them to Shiva, or to one of the other numerous Hindu gods.

For that matter, if he weren't religious, he might simply attribute them to chance or luck. And that's really the problem. All he can say is that he believes in God and therefore he's being rewarded for his faith. He can't show that any of these things were actually done by God. As a result, he leads himself down the garden path of his belief, until he ends up with some truly odd beliefs (like how American government is intended to be Christian even though it clearly is intended to keep government out of religion, and vice versa).

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.